questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Research is being conducted by people, so it is
normal to feel emotions at work.
I am not an original thinker on this subject, because there is lecture of
Ilona Stengel
If science strives for insensibility, then it strives for cruelty. Journals
are part of the research. The main part. It is nothing to prove the Riemann
Hypothesis, it is million times harder to publish it in a top journal.
The editor of a journal makes the final decision, not the reviewers of the
manuscript. Therefore, if the editor is an expert himself, then he can read
the author's appeal letters with a positive mindset. Thus, if the editor fells
in love or sympathy with the author (we are not robots, we can not
separate feelings and work), the author can publish many of his
papers. Provided that the editor will give enough possibilities and the own
patience for the author to convince him that:
A. manuscripts are error-free and
B. the negatively mood-ed reviewers are simply too skeptical about them.
For people to believe me, the manuscript must be
published in a top journal. And for the manuscript to be
published in a top journal, people must believe me, i.e.
to pay respect to my authority. Closed circle, the golden
ring of marriage with Miss Success.
This is similar to dating a woman in a
romantic relationship. Nothing helps - it either works
out or not.
1. Science is defined by its methodology.
2. There is methodological naturalism.
3. Thus, Science is not interested in super-natural, in UFOlogy.
4. But the times are changing: ``Pentagon faces June deadline to issue
unclassified report on UFO sightings'' YouTube.
5. So, you better have the material theory for it. Prof. Niels Bohr famously said to a student: "Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.''
Is Our World an Intelligent Simulation?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2104.0152
One Can not Observe the Impact with Detector the Zero Cross-Section Dark Matter Particle: it is Invisible Matter, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2105.0137
Science is not going to change just because you want it so badly.
Because the Science is like a proud beautiful lady, like one in the clip:
"Roxy Music - Avalon" YouTube.
Established proud beings are of eternal value, they can not be changing against their will:
Science, if it would be a lady, replies through a reviewer:
"That says it all, thanks.'' I dislike the word "thanks'' here.
But if my notices and conclusions are perfect, I have presented
likable compliments to Science.
Jon Bowers, ``We should aim for perfection - and stop
fearing failure'' YouTube.
The special combination of piecewise logic and feelings is
producing such a way of living (or dying) as Nihilism, it is defined
by the conclusion that there is no Absolute Truth. Everyone can have their
own reality. It is like in one planetary-sized madhouse, where sick ones do
not take pills because of trust in their own defined normality.
No objective standards and viewpoints. The theoretic of Nihilism is
Friedrich Nietzsche. This means, that a valid proof for Riemann's
Hypothesis can not be published in a reputable journal: everybody
feels like he is an Omniscient Suverene god in the self-given right to
reject even 1+2=3 if the latter feels not good: "Behold, the man
is become as one of us, to know good and evil'' Genesis 3:22,
"The question is not that something is true or false in absolute
sense, the question is: is this something beneficial for life or not?
Anything must be seen as right if it serves my interests.''
(Friedrich Nietzsche).
Just like a lady rejects a good candidate while dating, if
she is suddenly bored.
``Michael Jackson -- Remember The Time'',
``Lady Gaga -- Bad Romance''
``The Simpsons -- The ancient, mystic society of No Homers'',
``The Simpsons -- No Homers Club'' YouTube.
normal to feel emotions at work.
I am not an original thinker on this subject, because there is lecture of
Ilona Stengel
If science strives for insensibility, then it strives for cruelty. Journals
are part of the research. The main part. It is nothing to prove the Riemann
Hypothesis, it is million times harder to publish it in a top journal.
The editor of a journal makes the final decision, not the reviewers of the
manuscript. Therefore, if the editor is an expert himself, then he can read
the author's appeal letters with a positive mindset. Thus, if the editor fells
in love or sympathy with the author (we are not robots, we can not
separate feelings and work), the author can publish many of his
papers. Provided that the editor will give enough possibilities and the own
patience for the author to convince him that:
A. manuscripts are error-free and
B. the negatively mood-ed reviewers are simply too skeptical about them.
For people to believe me, the manuscript must be
published in a top journal. And for the manuscript to be
published in a top journal, people must believe me, i.e.
to pay respect to my authority. Closed circle, the golden
ring of marriage with Miss Success.
This is similar to dating a woman in a
romantic relationship. Nothing helps - it either works
out or not.
1. Science is defined by its methodology.
2. There is methodological naturalism.
3. Thus, Science is not interested in super-natural, in UFOlogy.
4. But the times are changing: ``Pentagon faces June deadline to issue
unclassified report on UFO sightings'' YouTube.
5. So, you better have the material theory for it. Prof. Niels Bohr famously said to a student: "Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.''
Is Our World an Intelligent Simulation?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2104.0152
One Can not Observe the Impact with Detector the Zero Cross-Section Dark Matter Particle: it is Invisible Matter, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2105.0137
Science is not going to change just because you want it so badly.
Because the Science is like a proud beautiful lady, like one in the clip:
"Roxy Music - Avalon" YouTube.
Established proud beings are of eternal value, they can not be changing against their will:
Science, if it would be a lady, replies through a reviewer:
"That says it all, thanks.'' I dislike the word "thanks'' here.
But if my notices and conclusions are perfect, I have presented
likable compliments to Science.
Jon Bowers, ``We should aim for perfection - and stop
fearing failure'' YouTube.
The special combination of piecewise logic and feelings is
producing such a way of living (or dying) as Nihilism, it is defined
by the conclusion that there is no Absolute Truth. Everyone can have their
own reality. It is like in one planetary-sized madhouse, where sick ones do
not take pills because of trust in their own defined normality.
No objective standards and viewpoints. The theoretic of Nihilism is
Friedrich Nietzsche. This means, that a valid proof for Riemann's
Hypothesis can not be published in a reputable journal: everybody
feels like he is an Omniscient Suverene god in the self-given right to
reject even 1+2=3 if the latter feels not good: "Behold, the man
is become as one of us, to know good and evil'' Genesis 3:22,
"The question is not that something is true or false in absolute
sense, the question is: is this something beneficial for life or not?
Anything must be seen as right if it serves my interests.''
(Friedrich Nietzsche).
Just like a lady rejects a good candidate while dating, if
she is suddenly bored.
``Michael Jackson -- Remember The Time'',
``Lady Gaga -- Bad Romance''
``The Simpsons -- The ancient, mystic society of No Homers'',
``The Simpsons -- No Homers Club'' YouTube.
Last edited:
